₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
For him to get stroke means that he did not believe.

I have always told you that when believers die, it is different and i have seen the deaths of both a believer and the others and the difference is clear.

Gods...

You mean all believers are without ailments? And none has ever been taken down with stroke?

Dtruthspeaker:
How what?

The bolded.

Just because you watched someone die. You now claim you know first hand about dying and death?

How?

correctguy101:
Gods...

You mean all believers are without ailments? And none has ever been taken down with stroke?

The major difference is in the way they are dying. I believe also that the mode of death too will be different but I have not verified this fact.

But what i have verified is the fact that everyone who is not a child of God, goes into a great, ugly panic session full of terrors and expressing great resistance and complete refusal/unwillingness to die.

correctguy101:
The bolded.

Just because you watched someone die. You now claim you know first hand about dying and death?

How?

I have been studying for a long while watching what happens and how it plays out, and then like a final class God put me in the situation where I could see everything direct, second by second from (as Catholics would say) from the calm travails to when the restless of death walk. And the craz thing was that as soon as they told me that he has been taken to the hospital, i immediately knew that this was it. And as soon as saw him, i saw that he was going, even before the travails started.

Dtruthspeaker:
The major difference is in the way they are dying. I believe also that the mode of death too will be different but I have not verified this fact.

But what i have verified is the fact that everyone who is not a child of God, goes into a great, ugly panic session full of terrors and expressing great resistance and complete refusal/unwillingness to die.

In my experience, it's mostly the other way around.

Most believers won't even look for any opportunity to save themselves when faced with dangerous situations. They only know how to shout "Jesus" at the top of their voices...

I have experienced more than one such situation. And was instrumental in rescuing a girl one time. The only injury she got was on one leg and was minor compared to the other person involved. All these experiences, I came out without injury. I'm not saying I'm anything special to have come out without scratch but I've had the habit of going into sharp mode when I sense danger. Even with increased heartbeat, I'll still be calm.

Even when I did operation back in the days, lols. I shared a ward with one man. When he did his own operation, he was just shouting Jesus Christ when he came to. Although, the nurse said I was calling for my mum, I'm still embarrassed. But I was calmer. So I was told.

Well, I can't use my self to compare other unbelievers as I don't know their own mind on matters like facing death or experiencing death threatening situations.

So on the bolded, I'll say the believers fear death more as most unbelievers have come to terms with it, most of us wouldn't mind it all even if that fear exists as is common with all living entities.

Dtruthspeaker:
Car makers know their cars are not perfect. God made His perfect only for the idio car to go and put palm oil in its petrol tank and then it got sick from diseases and dies. Why would God move an inch.

Even your car makers warn you that their warranties do not cover self inflicted shii..., so you guys have to ☠️.

Even car makers will fix a mistake the user made but your wimp of a god is too dumb to do anything. Car makers even make spare parts for their products but your all powerful god is too dull to figure out how to do that.

You are talking about parents who are praying to Him only because your doctors and their jujus did not work, you expect God to answer? Or people who have already said that they shall never have anything to do with Him since their govts and parents are taking care of them. Hunger, house rent, cancer should wiper all of una off

Right, the parents who have been Christians all their lives are only praying now. The nonsense you people have to make up to defend your beliefs is astounding.

correctguy101:
In my experience, it's mostly the other way around.

Most believers won't even look for any opportunity to save themselves when faced with dangerous situations. They only know how to shout "Jesus" at the top of their voices...

I have experienced more than one such situation. And was instrumental in rescuing a girl one time. The only injury she got was on one leg and was minor compared to the other person involved. All these experiences, I came out without injury. I'm not saying I'm anything special to have come out without scratch but I've had the habit of going into sharp mode when I sense danger. Even with increased heartbeat, I'll still be calm.

Even when I did operation back in the days, lols. I shared a ward with one man. When he did his own operation, he was just shouting Jesus Christ when he came to. Although, the nurse said I was calling for my mum, I'm still embarrassed. But I was calmer. So I was told.

Well, I can't use my self to compare other unbelievers as I don't know their own mind on matters like facing death or experiencing death threatening situations.

So on the bolded, I'll say the believers fear death more as most unbelievers have come to terms with it, most of us wouldn't mind it all even if that fear exists as is common with all living entities.

Your assertion that all believers experience a 'panic session' at death, a reflected transformation of Dtruthspeaker's claim🥱, is a hasty generalization that contradicts established clinical research. Primarily, studies on death anxiety actually show an inverted-U relationship: the highest levels of fear are found in those with uncertain or moderate beliefs, while both the devoutly religious and committed atheists report the highest levels of peace. This suggests that conviction, rather than the specific content of the belief, is the primary buffer against terror.

Furthermore, palliative care data indicates that death is largely an extension of personality🤔; people generally approach their end with the same temperament and coping mechanisms they used throughout their lives🤧. To claim 'everyone'👀 in a certain group reacts identically is a fallacy of composition that ignores the vast diversity of human psychological responses.

LordReed:
Even car makers will fix a mistake the user made but your wimp of a god is too dumb to do anything. Car makers even make spare parts for their products but your all pwerful god is too dull to figure out how to do that



You are talking about parents who are praying to Him only because your doctors and their jujus did not work, you expect God to answer? Or people who have already said that they shall never have anything to do with Him since their govts and parents are taking care of them. Hunger, house rent, cancer should wiper all of una off

Ironically, your own analogy actually vindicates God in the sense that car maker(s) provide(s) spare parts because the car is a closed system that eventually fails and is discarded. The manufacturer cannot "resurrect" a crushed car; they can only replace its components until the frame itself gives out. Your analogy, contrary to your opinion, just highlights that God doesn't "fix" us with spare parts because He isn't interested in just keeping an old machine running. According to the Bible, He offers a complete restoration.🤔
That I think is the difference.

I also believe that God’s "silence"🤨 or refusal to intervene in every minor "mistake" isn't a lack of power, but a display of ultimate confidence🤔. If you know you can bring someone back from the dead (like the "bones being made whole" or the resurrection), a temporary "breakdown" isn't a permanent failure🤷. From His omnipotence He can bring us back. That's the crux of the Christian belief—The existential belief that God can raise us up and can redeem us no matter how irredeemable the circumstances may seem.

Gabrielshow26:
Ironically, your own analogy actually vindicates God in the sense that car maker(s) provide(s) spare parts because the car is a closed system that eventually fails and is discarded. The manufacturer cannot "resurrect" a crushed car; they can only replace its components until the frame itself gives out. Your analogy, contrary to your opinion, just highlights that God doesn't "fix" us with spare parts because He isn't interested in just keeping an old machine running. According to the Bible, He offers a complete restoration.🤔
That I think is the difference.

I also believe that God’s "silence"🤨 or refusal to intervene in every minor "mistake" isn't a lack of power, but a display of ultimate confidence🤔. If you know you can bring someone back from the dead (like the "bones being made whole" or the resurrection), a temporary "breakdown" isn't a permanent failure🤷. From His omnipotence He can bring us back. That's the crux of the Christian belief—The existential belief that God can raise us up and can redeem us no matter how irredeemable the circumstances may seem.

LoLz. Medicine after death. Death the state which there is no coming back from. That is why you lot hide your god there.

His silence shows he doesn't exist. Your god is purpoeted to have raised people from death and restored withered limbs but in this day and age where cameras exist in every house now your god is silent. Poppycock.

LordReed:
LoLz. Medicine after death. Death the state which there is no coming back from. That is why you lot hide your god there.

His silence shows he doesn't exist. Your god is purpoeted to have raised people from death and restored withered limbs but in this day and age where cameras exist in every house now your god is silent. Poppycock.

You’re still stuck on the car-maintenance mindset. You’re essentially demanding that the manufacturer come out to the driveway and change a tire just to prove they exist. Whereas the maker has already promised to replace the entire car with an indestructible model when the lease is up, hence, they don't need to perform 'camera-stunts' to keep you happy now🤷.

I believe Biblical miracles weren't just repairs; they were previews of the final restoration—showing what the 'new model' looks like. This theme is prevalent in the Bible. By the way, If God gave a public sign every time someone pointed a camera, He’d be a mechanic on call, not the Creator. He doesn't need to 'fix' a limb for your camera today because He’s already planned to restore the whole person forever🤔. Faith isn't 'medicine after death'. It's the registration for the total upgrade He’s already guaranteed.

Gabrielshow26:
Your assertion that all believers experience a 'panic session' at death, a reflected transformation of Dtruthspeaker's claim🥱, is a hasty generalization that contradicts established clinical research. Primarily, studies on death anxiety actually show an inverted-U relationship: the highest levels of fear are found in those with uncertain or moderate beliefs, while both the devoutly religious and committed atheists report the highest levels of peace. This suggests that conviction, rather than the specific content of the belief, is the primary buffer against terror.

Furthermore, palliative care data indicates that death is largely an extension of personality🤔; people generally approach their end with the same temperament and coping mechanisms they used throughout their lives🤧. To claim 'everyone'👀 in a certain group reacts identically is a fallacy of composition that ignores the vast diversity of human psychological responses.

Correct.

I withdraw my assertion if it come across as generalization.

Should have been modest in my reply.

My experiences does differ from this research you speak about. And I am very confident the research wasn't done in Nigeria. Most believers over here are maybe different from my observation.

I totally agree with the bolded though....

I guess most of them hardly have that much "conviction" in whatever it is they claim they adhere to.

Gabrielshow26:
You’re still stuck on the car-maintenance mindset. You’re essentially demanding that the manufacturer come out to the driveway and change a tire just to prove they exist. Whereas the maker has already promised to replace the entire car with an indestructible model when the lease is up, hence, they don't need to perform 'camera-stunts' to keep you happy now🤷.

I believe Biblical miracles weren't just repairs; they were previews of the final restoration—showing what the 'new model' looks like. This theme is prevalent in the Bible. By the way, If God gave a public sign every time someone pointed a camera, He’d be a mechanic on call, not the Creator. He doesn't need to 'fix' a limb for your camera today because He’s already planned to restore the whole person forever🤔. Faith isn't 'medicine after death'. It's the registration for the total upgrade He’s already guaranteed.

Another after death purveyor. Come lemme sell you are house you'll occupy after you are dead. LoLz.

correctguy101:
In my experience, it's mostly the other way around.

Most believers won't even look for any opportunity to save themselves when faced with dangerous situations. They only know how to shout "Jesus" at the top of their voices...

I have experienced more than one such situation. And was instrumental in rescuing a girl one time. The only injury she got was on one leg and was minor compared to the other person involved. All these experiences, I came out without injury. I'm not saying I'm anything special to have come out without scratch but I've had the habit of going into sharp mode when I sense danger. Even with increased heartbeat, I'll still be calm.

Even when I did operation back in the days, lols. I shared a ward with one man. When he did his own operation, he was just shouting Jesus Christ when he came to. Although, the nurse said I was calling for my mum, I'm still embarrassed. But I was calmer. So I was told.

Well, I can't use my self to compare other unbelievers as I don't know their own mind on matters like facing death or experiencing death threatening situations.

So on the bolded, I'll say the believers fear death more as most unbelievers have come to terms with it, most of us wouldn't mind it all even if that fear exists as is common with all living entities.

That is not a believer just a person who believes that shouting The Name shall save them. And their panic shouting tells you that they are not believers, for there is grace God gives to His own. That is why you saw Stephen and the disciples, David, Abraham, Moses etc face certain death with joy and peace.

That is why you heard Paul say that he prefers to die than to live.

Death is a very good thing to a believer, so they are always happy to enter it

LordReed:
Even car makers will fix a mistake the user made but your wimp of a god is too dumb to do anything. Car makers even make spare parts for their products but your all powerful god is too dull to figure out how to do that.

See, it spoken like a true devu.

They fix the mistake you made only when you pay for it. They make spare parts because their cars are not perfect and long lasting. But God created us perfect and long lasting, so no spare parts needed as many people here already proven.

So, you are only repeating yourself

LordReed:
Right, the parents who have been Christians all their lives are only praying now. The nonsense you people have to make up to defend your beliefs is astounding.

Because, you define Christian as people who pray and go to church, whereas God knows those who are worshiping Him and He always pours many many blessings on them so they don't need to go through this shi..

Gabrielshow26:
Your assertion that all believers experience a 'panic session' at death, a reflected transformation of Dtruthspeaker's claim🥱, is a hasty generalization that contradicts established clinical research. Primarily, studies on death anxiety actually show an inverted-U relationship: the highest levels of fear are found in those with uncertain or moderate beliefs, while both the devoutly religious and committed atheists report the highest levels of peace.

This part is a lie. Atheists can never die in peace. I missed the death of one atheists i know and he was stabbed. And his burial was even funnier, dry prayers was said for him and even to put him in the grave, the coffin did not enter. Hours passed as they tried forcing him to enter but it still did not work and i left. Clearly shows you that as in life, even in death there is no rest for him

Dtruthspeaker:
See, it spoken like a true devu.

They fix the mistake you made only when you pay for it. They make spare parts because their cars are not perfect and long lasting. But God created us perfect and long lasting, so no spare parts needed as many people here already proven.

So, you are only repeating yourself

Bwahahahahaha! Perfect and long lasting indeed. So perfect you have people born without limbs which your god cannot fix nor can he fix the myriad of health problems people encounter in their life time. He can't even prevent death. Your god is a fraud. LoLz.

Because, you define Christian as people who pray and go to church, whereas God knows those who are worshiping Him and He always pours many many blessings on them so they don't need to go through this shi..

LoLz. Which of them will not die, point them out let's see. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! Perfect and long lasting indeed. So perfect you have people born without limbs which your god cannot fix nor can he fix the myriad of health problems people encounter in their life time. He can't even prevent death. Your god is a fraud. LoLz.

Hahahahahahahaha
You are just repeating yourself devhu. I have already told you that those people are your family members, so their afflictions are you peoples pun. ish mens.

LordReed:
LoLz. Which of them will not die, point them out let's see. Bwahahahahaha!

Surely not dying tormentouslly like you pipu Hahahahahahahaha.

Dtruthspeaker:
Hahahahahahahaha
You are just repeating yourself devhu. I have already told you that those people are your family members, so their afflictions are you peoples pun. ish mens.

Yes my family members like that Christian preacher that was born with no arms or legs. LoLz.

Surely not dying tormentouslly like you pipu Hahahahahahahaha.

Tell your god to keep one of them alive for 200 years minimum kpere. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
Yes my family members like that Christian preacher that was born with no arms or legs. LoLz.

That is one of d cus that hangs on u piipu. Lol

LordReed:
Tell your god to keep one of them alive for 200 years minimum kpere. Bwahahahahaha!

We are ok with what we have and certainly not dying tormentouslly like you pipu, terrifyingly crying and regretting your lives Hahahahahahahaha!

Dtruthspeaker:
That is one of d cus that hangs on u piipu. Lol



We are ok with what we have and certainly not dying tormentouslly like you pipu, terrifyingly crying and regretting your lives Hahahahahahahaha!

Fraud. LMAO!

TV01:
I disagree. Evidence for a creator abounds. My faith is historically attested too. Evidenced.

While I find the evidentiary landscape barren on both counts, I should note here that evidence for a creator isn't synonymous with evidence for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent one. There's quite a gap there - and it's pulling serious overtime.

Again, you rightly limit your observations to "observable reality". That was my point - not an attack on your morality, but your ability to take into account, or even all the relevant dynamic.

If the bounds of my finite understanding disqualify me from indicting the divine, they equally disqualify you from vindicating it. You cannot selectively invoke epistemic humility only when it serves your argument. Forward from that point: a God whose goodness is structurally unverifiable is also a God whose goodness is functionally meaningless as a claim. To wit, you have not expanded the argument, but have quietly dissolved it by making it unfalsifiable on demand. I don't necessarily think you're arguing in bad faith, but you are arguing with a framework that immunises itself against every challenge by simply retreating into inscrutability.

All of God's attributes work in tandem. Actions by other players in the cosmos earthly and heavenly have consequences. Faith assures me that God has this all worked out. Whilst there may be pain and suffering now, redemption will come to all those who put their faith in Him.

And how exactly does "worked out" constitute a response to a logical problem? You've described a feeling of assurance, not a solution to the structural incompatibility between omnipotence and preventable suffering. Faith that everything eventually resolves doesn't address whether a morally perfect omnipotent being would permit the specific suffering in question to occur at all. That is the actual argument, and you've moved cleanly past it without engaging it. There's little here that constitutes a counter-argument rather than a restatement of belief.

Your take is temporal. A surgeon rips open a mans chest to perform open heart surgery. Tat is harm, damage, but the end thereof is healing. One who was limited view of only the ripping may come to a different conclusion.

That analogy doesn't hold, and I'll tell you why. First, the surgeon operates within knowable causal chains and with the patient's eventual consent, while an omnipotent deity operates under neither constraint and with total foreknowledge of the outcome before the disease even forms. Second, the surgeon cannot prevent the disease. Omnipotence, by definition, can. So you're comparing a limited agent doing their best with an unlimited one choosing not to.

Just filling out your postulation. Resorting to an emotional use-case is not required. If you declare omnipotence is responsible for and to alleviate pain, harm and suffering, surely it must be the totality of it?

I'm afraid the emotional charge of an example has zero bearing on its logical weight. I think you're simply struggling to distinguish between rhetorical intensity and argumentative precision. I cited children with brain tumours because the causal chain is clean and agent-neutral, not because I'm appealing to your sympathy rather than your reason.

The parent who abandons their offspring and leads to lots f hurt and poorer outcomes. The one who leaves a supposedly committed realationship causing heartbreak. Random muggings, assaults, terror attacks, wars, along with a host of other things all cause pain, harm or suffering. Why not charge omnipotence with them as well?


TV

Simple: human agents cause those harms precisely because omnipotence permits them to, which merely relocates the problem rather than dissolving it - and now you must explain why a morally perfect omnipotent being permits the enabling conditions at all. Besides, you're widening the scope as though that helps your case when it doesn't. If anything, it multiplies the problem considerably. It's worth noting I never excluded human-caused suffering from the indictment. I used the tumour case because it surgically - pun intended 😎 - removes the human-agency variable, nothing more.

NerdCat:
While I find the evidentiary landscape barren on both counts, I should note here that evidence for a creator isn't synonymous with evidence for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent one. There's quite a gap there - and it's pulling serious overtime.

This kind of simple nuance you have laid out here is sadly beyond your co-discussant TV01, who notwithstanding all grandstanding to the slightest knowledge, is one of the most unscholarly discussants you can ever waste your time on.

You are one of the soundest writers I have come across in a long time. Are you new here or a returnee in disguise. And are you pure atheist? Are you strict materialist?

DeepSight:
This kind of simple nuance you have laid out here is sadly beyond your co-discussant TV01, who notwithstanding all grandstanding to the slightest knowledge, is one of the most unscholarly discussants you can ever waste your time on.

Sounds like you're old buddies, haha.

You are one of the soundest writers I have come across in a long time. Are you new here or a returnee in disguise. And are you pure atheist? Are you strict materialist?

I appreciate the compliment.

To your first question, the answer is a mix of both. I've been around as a guest, but never registered to actually contribute until recently. As it is, I'm still primarily a ghost on this site.

To your second question, the answer is no - I hold the question genuinely open. Materialism hasn't closed every gap yet.

NerdCat:
To your second question, the answer is no - I hold the question genuinely open. Materialism hasn't closed every gap yet.

Very well weighed. Very. Interesting.
Agnostic thus? With possible / potential belief in / acceptance of the spiritual and intangible?

DeepSight:
Very well weighed. Very. Interesting.
Agnostic thus? With possible / potential belief in / acceptance of the spiritual and intangible?

Agnostic feels the closest, yes. I don't dismiss the spiritual outrightly. The existence of consciousness alone gives me sufficient pause for that. But what I resist - often strongly - is the leap from "materialism is incomplete" to any specific theological architecture like perhaps Christianity or Islam.

NerdCat:
Agnostic feels the closest, yes. I don't dismiss the spiritual outrightly. The existence of consciousness alone gives me sufficient pause for that. But what I resist - often strongly - is the leap from "materialism is incomplete" to any specific theological architecture like perhaps Christianity or Islam.

Completely resonates with me.

I am curious. Even tempted to create a thread to "interview" you here. I have a history as a resident Larry King on this board. Let's do it.

https://www.nairaland.com/8664951/welcome-nerd-philosophy-existentialism

DeepSight:
Completely resonates with me.

I am curious. Even tempted to create a thread to "interview" you here. I have a history as a resident Larry King on this board. Let's do it.

https://www.nairaland.com/8664951/welcome-nerd-philosophy-existentialism

With pleasure.
I'd be delighted to jump in.

NerdCat:
While I find the evidentiary landscape barren on both counts, I should note here that evidence for a creator isn't synonymous with evidence for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent one. There's quite a gap there - and it's pulling serious overtime.

You are free to your view. Mine is different. I am sufficiently convinced by the evidence there is that there is a Creator, and that He is perfect in all His ways. How could He not be.

NerdCat:
If the bounds of my finite understanding disqualify me from indicting the divine, they equally disqualify you from vindicating it. You cannot selectively invoke epistemic humility only when it serves your argument. Forward from that point: a God whose goodness is structurally unverifiable is also a God whose goodness is functionally meaningless as a claim. To wit, you have not expanded the argument, but have quietly dissolved it by making it unfalsifiable on demand. I don't necessarily think you're arguing in bad faith, but you are arguing with a framework that immunises itself against every challenge by simply retreating into inscrutability.

You do realise that for believers faith is a factor. If "verifiaility" is beyond us, who is to say? Could you explain what you mean by structurally - is that within what you'd call a logical framework, or something else?

NerdCat:
And how exactly does "worked out" constitute a response to a logical problem? You've described a feeling of assurance, not a solution to the structural incompatibility between omnipotence and preventable suffering. Faith that everything eventually resolves doesn't address whether a morally perfect omnipotent being would permit the specific suffering in question to occur at all. That is the actual argument, and you've moved cleanly past it without engaging it. There's little here that constitutes a counter-argument rather than a restatement of belief.

Why does suffering "have to be prevented". Why is incumbent on The Creator to ensure there is no suffering? Christianity portrays "suffering" as an outworking of disobedience by mankind - for which warning was given. For beings created out of and for love, freewill has to be a part of the mix.

NerdCat:
That analogy doesn't hold, and I'll tell you why. First, the surgeon operates within knowable causal chains and with the patient's eventual consent, while an omnipotent deity operates under neither constraint and with total foreknowledge of the outcome before the disease even forms. Second, the surgeon cannot prevent the disease. Omnipotence, by definition, can. So you're comparing a limited agent doing their best with an unlimited one choosing not to.

Omnipotence acts likewise - with certain knowledge of the mercy and justness of the outcome. Again, you claim to know what is best. How? What is your framework for determining this?

NerdCat:
I'm afraid the emotional charge of an example has zero bearing on its logical weight. I think you're simply struggling to distinguish between rhetorical intensity and argumentative precision. I cited children with brain tumours because the causal chain is clean and agent-neutral, not because I'm appealing to your sympathy rather than your reason.

Suffering is suffering. If you charge Omnipotence within your framework with the ability and foreknowledge to forestall it, why make any distinction?

NerdCat:
Simple: human agents cause those harms precisely because omnipotence permits them to, which merely relocates the problem rather than dissolving it - and now you must explain why a morally perfect omnipotent being permits the enabling conditions at all. Besides, you're widening the scope as though that helps your case when it doesn't. If anything, it multiplies the problem considerably. It's worth noting I never excluded human-caused suffering from the indictment. I used the tumour case because it surgically - pun intended 😎 - removes the human-agency variable, nothing more.

I have indicated why within my faith framework. I don't so much see a widening as no reason to restrict it. Omnipotence is in view is it not? .


TV

TV01:
You are free to your view. Mine is different. I am sufficiently convinced by the evidence there is that there is a Creator, and that He is perfect in all His ways. How could He not be.

Well, in that case, conviction is still not evidence, however warmly it is held

You do realise that for believers faith is a factor. If "verifiaility" is beyond us, who is to say? Could you explain what you mean by structurally - is that within what you'd call a logical framework, or something else?

In many quarters, the concept that "faith is a factor" functions as a philosophical ejector seat - deployed with remarkable precision the moment logical turbulence becomes genuinely uncomfortable. But the sad reality is that the instant you invoke faith as a counter to a structural argument, you have conceded the structural argument and simply elected not to file the paperwork. What then remains is not a rebuttal but an aesthetic preference. And by structurally unverifiable I mean precisely this: the claim is arranged such that no conceivable state of affairs could count as evidence against it.

Why does suffering "have to be prevented". Why is incumbent on The Creator to ensure there is no suffering? Christianity portrays "suffering" as an outworking of disobedience by mankind - for which warning was given. For beings created out of and for love, freewill has to be a part of the mix.

One may be momentarily seduced by the free will gambit - it carries a certain rhetorical elegance in the abstract, I'll grant it that much. Ultimately, it evaporates the moment you recall that omnipotence designed the entire system, possessed exhaustive foreknowledge of every resulting atrocity, and constructed it anyway. Permission? I think not.

Omnipotence acts likewise - with certain knowledge of the mercy and justness of the outcome. Again, you claim to know what is best. How? What is your framework for determining this?

I don't claim to know what is best. I claim to know what "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnibenevolent" mean, and I am holding your deity to His own advertised specifications rather than any standard I've imported. So no vex, but if your God demonstrably falls short of His own job description, that is not my framework malfunctioning, but yours. I only read the label on the tin, as presented.

Suffering is suffering. If you charge Omnipotence within your framework with the ability and foreknowledge to forestall it, why make any distinction?

Because being methodologically precise and having indifference to morality are not remotely the same thing, and conflating them would reveals a rather significant confusion about how these types of arguments work. Duh.

I have indicated why within my faith framework. I don't so much see a widening as no reason to restrict it. Omnipotence is in view is it not? .


TV

That's a fancy bit of footwork you're doing there, but I should warn you that you're tap-dancing smack dab in the middle of a minefield. In a debate about logical coherence, retreating into your faith framework is nothing but you choosing to forfeit but dressing said forfeit in dignified clothing and/or reframing it as rebuttal. You have essentially argued that within the system which presupposes the conclusion, the conclusion holds, which I have to say, is a breathtaking position to take on its own. Plus, your insistence that there is "no reason to restrict" the scope actually confirms my point with aggressive thoroughness - if omnipotence is in view across the totality of suffering, you have just volunteered an infinitely larger indictment than the modest one I originally tabled. So unless you're secretly supporting my argument, you've played yourself.

What you need to understand is that expanding the domain of divine responsibility does pretty muchnothing to fortify your position. If anything, it detonates it at scale and with considerably more collateral damage.

The preceding exchanges have demonstrated, with rather elegant consistency, that every manoeuvre you attempt here either begs the question outrightly or somehow multiplies the problem it was meant to dissolve in the first place. I would suppose a more nimble theologian might have identified these exits closing several turns ago. But, that would be a big laugh.

DeepSight:
Does watching the many extreme infirmities, indignities and vulnerabilities of old age not take away in many cases the joy of living a long and ripe life and lead many to question the mercies and intentions of our creator?

A merciful God to you is one that takes away all infirmity, pain and sickness and establishes a perfect world right?

The moment we feel pain or suffer weather in old age or as youths, he is no longer merciful right?

Let's start with understanding your premises

tctrills:
A merciful God to you is one that takes away all infirmity, pain and sickness and establishes a perfect world right?

The moment we feel pain or suffer weather in old age or as youths, he is no longer merciful right?

Let's start with understanding your premises

Let it sink in. I am done with you.
I cannot continue to have discussions of such seriousness and gravity with one who has been recently exposed in the way you have been, and who refuses to recant from that hideous position he was exposed in.

DeepSight:
Let it sink in. I am done with you.
I cannot continue to have discussions of such seriousness and gravity with one who has been recently exposed in the way you have been, and who refuses to recant from that hideous position he was exposed in.

Oga that's your problem.
You are free not to answer or respond but I will continue to oppose foolishness and falsehoods
You can't escape that one
Cancel culture will not save you.
In fact, you will see more of me whenever you post a falsehood or make a stupid post